Female Wrestlers' Title IX Claims Against UC Davis Revived
With a February 8, 2010 opinion, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals gave new life to the Title IX claims of a class of female student athletes on the University of California at Davis (“UC Davis”) wrestling team.
The acclaimed UC Davis wrestling team had previously made room for female wrestlers, allowing them to train and practice with the men’s team, while competing against only other women. UC Davis changed the program in 2000, when it eliminated all women from the wrestling team. Under heavy pressure, UC Davis quickly recanted and allowed the female wrestlers to participate, but only if they could beat male wrestlers in their weight class. The result remained the same, as it effectively destroyed the female wrestlers’ ability to participate.
A class of female wrestlers filed suit, alleging violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681, which provides that “[n]o person shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in. . . any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” After the female wrestlers filed suit, UC Davis sought and secured an order of summary judgment, dismissing the Title IX claims as a matter of law, based on the plaintiffs’ failure to give notice to UC Davis in advance of filing suit. Under Title IX, schools may only be held liable for money damages where they “had adequate knowledge that they could be liable for the conduct at issue.” Williams v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, 477 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2007). Title IX is not designed to award damages for unintentional violations. On those grounds, the trial court held that plaintiffs’ claims failed for lack of pre-suit notice.
Reversing the trial court, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the notice requirement, applicable in the sexual harassment context, does not apply to violations premised on athletic department policy. “Universities’ decisions with respect to athletics are. . . ‘easily attributable to the funding recipient and. . . always—by definition—intentional.’” Accordingly, there is no notice requirement for Title IX claims based on express athletic policies of the institution.
In an attempt to salvage the trial court’s dismissal, UC Davis argued in the alternative that it was entitled to summary judgment on a separate ground: that UC Davis “had a ‘history and continuing practice of program expansion’ for the under represented sex.’” However, the Ninth Circuit determined that UC Davis failed to satisfy that standard, as the claims at issue arose during a period of “overall contraction of female athletic participation.”
Reversing the trial court’s order of dismissal, the Ninth Circuit remanded the lawsuit back to the trial court for further proceedings on the merits of plaintiffs’ claims.
